jar writes:
Well, I have never said that any of my personal beliefs are "worthy of your consideration" that I know of.
I honestly don't care what you personally believe. Your focus on that is simply a method of evading my more generic question:
In the absence of faith is there any reason to consider any impossible-to-evidence notion over any other?
This leads to the specific question (where your personal beliefs are nothing more than an incidental example):
Is your notion of GOD more worthy or my faithless consideration than the equally impossible-to-evidence notion that everything I experience has been falsely and undetectably planted by unknowable beings?
jar writes:
In fact I have said throughout this thread that in the case of being on a jury even I should disregard my personal beliefs and address only the evidence presented, so again I am at a loss just what you need me to say?
I want you to answer simple questions honestly and explicitly without your usual recourse to "It's my belief, it's my belief, you can't tell me what to believe" (to paraphrase) whenever you are confronted with difficult questions about the relative validity of equally un-evidenced notions.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.